Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT N. CRAVALHO, No. 21-15299
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08211-SRB-
MHB
v.
PRESCOTT POLICE DEPARTMENT; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Robert N. Cravalho appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cravalho’s motions
for reconsideration because Cravalho failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and 60(b)).
We do not consider Cravalho’s contentions regarding the underlying
judgment because Cravalho failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that
judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30
days of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling
motions must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment); Swimmer v. IRS,
811 F.2d 1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (an untimely second motion for
reconsideration does not toll time to appeal the underlying judgment), abrogated
on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.
1997).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15299